Pots & kettles

Just about all of the news outlets I use are suggesting the 'international community' needs to step in to stop more bloodshed in Libya. By 'international community' they mean, and usually name, the USA, the EU and NATO.

The West in other words.

But what about the Arab League and the African Union?

Libya is a member of both organisations so surely they should have been taking the lead in this crisis.

Nothing from them for weeks but now, according to AP, the Arab League have at last spoken out about the situation.

The foreign ministers meeting in Cairo have: ...condemned Gaddafi's crackdown on the Libyan people and said they would consider imposing a no-fly zone over the country if the turmoil continues...The Arab ministers said they will coordinate their discussions about a no-fly zone with the African Union and consult 'about the best ways to protect and ensure the safety and security of Libyan citizens'.

So the two organisations which should have been active from the beginning are gently dipping their toes to test the water.

It must be difficult for the Arab League though, given that some of the member governments condemning Gaddafi's actions are guilty of doing exactly the same.

As for the African Union, they've been conspicuous by their silence. A few gentle comments about governments needing to listen to and negotiate with their people is as critical as they've been.

But then it's difficult for them too isn't it. More than a few of the member countries have governments not dissimilar to the colonel's of course, and it's long been assumed that the colonel bankrolled the AU and paid smaller countries' fees.

The old cliche 'the pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind.




The AP report is  here.

A historic day

What an amazing couple of weeks in Egypt.

The seemingly unmoveable Mubarak regime has gone. A regime not only brutal in the way it usually treated dissent and which had all-but destroyed any organised opposition but which was, let's not forget, also supported and propped up by the West.

In spite of all that a largely peaceful mass uprising by the people has removed them.

Amazing.

While it is a people's revolution the critical part the military played in the revolution should be acknowledged. Surprisingly to me they stood by and let the revolution take its course.

It was a big dipper of a revolution and it was touch and go there for a while.

It looks to me as though the original thinking of the regime was that it would fizzle out afer a few days, so they did nothing.

Then they tried to show that chaos would be the result by loosing off some thuggish 'supporters' to create violence.

By and large, and to their credit, the crowd didn't resort to retaliation with violence and the chaos the regime wanted didn't really happen.

The numbers waxed and waned, but calls for 'million people' demonstrations boosted the numbers again.

It was touch and go on Thursday when Mubarak was expected to resign by just about everyone but didn't.

If there was going to be a violent reaction, the disappointment at that point was going to ignite it.

Again to their credit, the people were restrained but determined.

There are lessons in it too for American foreign policy makers and their western allies, not that they've ever learned from their mistakes in the past though.

Once again they've been supporting a brutal, undemocratic dictator hated by his people.

And think about Iraq & Afghanistan - you can't impose a political system on people, the people themselves have to do it.

As the Egyptians have so wonderfully shown.

There's one rule for us...

Residents of all Emaar complexes across the emirate are forbidden from draping their country's colours from balconies, windows, garages or in gardens.

When 7DAYS contacted Emaar’s customer care centre to ask for a flag-ban amnesty as football fever sweeps the UAE, an adviser said: "They are not allowed even in the World Cup - I’m sorry to burst your bubble."
7Days.

I can see why flags might be banned. They can be unsightly, they can be distracting to motorists.

We do want to keep the place neat and tidy and safe don't we.

Just as well flags & banners are not allowed in Emaar developments then...

Err, unless you're Emaar. In which case you can put up as many advertising flags as you can find room for.



Or a commercial enterprise, in which case you can put temporary advertising flags at the roadside.



So maybe the ban really applies to national flags then?

Not if you're a hotel in an Emaar development.




Oh I see. It's not a ban on flags and banners, it's a ban on private residents displaying flags and banners.

Accepting responsibility

I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that more than a few things annoy me.

I post regularly about my irritation with things like bad planning, management incompetence, lack of communication, the mangling of the language, bigotry.

There's another thing which annoys the hell out of me that's just cropped up again - leaders saying they accept full responsibility for their actions.

We get it from politicians, leaders of business, of the armed services, of the police.

After their actions have caused problems in the lives of others, caused people to lose their jobs, their homes, their lives in some cases, the waste-of-space 'leader' stands up and says he accepts full responsibility for his actions.

And you know what accepting responsibility actually means to him?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

He's affected in no way whatsoever.

It's the ultimate insult to our intelligence. The final middle finger gesture to the people whose lives they've damaged.

The latest to do it is the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, the bankrupt investment bank. Richard Fuld was testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman.

Reading the same script which so many 'leaders' have read before he told the committee:

"I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made and for the actions that I took...this is a pain that will stay with me for the rest of my life..."

What a fatuous remark it is, stating the bleedin' obvious. He made the decisions, so how could he be anything but responsible for them?

But his pain will be eased, I'm sure, by the 'compensation' (as salary packages are called these days) he paid himself while steering the good ship Lehmen onto the rocks.

The firm, in the days before it filed for bankruptcy, sought board approval to pay three departing executives more than $20 million, according to Waxman.

"Even as Mr. Fuld was pleading ... for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation," Waxman said.

Some members of the committee took particular issue with Fuld for his salary and bonuses. Fuld received a $22 million bonus in March. Waxman added that Fuld "will walk away a wealthy man."

Waxman displayed a chart that detailed what he said was $480 million in compensation since 2000 and pointed out that Fuld owned a $14 million oceanfront home in Florida, an extensive art collection and another home in Sun Valley, Idaho.

"Your company is now bankrupt, the economy is in a state of crisis, yet you get to bring home $480 million," said Waxman.

Naturally, Fuld disputed the tally of his earnings.

Fuld said that Waxman's figure included stock holdings, while Waxman insisted it did not.

The reality is that he took tens, almost certainly hundreds, of millions of dollars out for himself, which he will keep.

I'm amazed he was able to keep a straight face as he 'took full responsibility.'

I would like one of the committee members to ask him:

You have told us you accept full responsibility. Please detail to this committee exactly what that means. How will accepting responsibility manifest itself?



A report on the hearing is here.

A change of BushW policy?

...a solemn Bush said outside the Oval Office.

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he said.

A change of policy? Ah, no, he's talking about Russia.

Do as I say, not as I do.


The quote is from here.

Double standards

Dr (Condoleezza)Rice said: “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed.”

So a large country can't occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it.

Unless the country is BushW's good ol' US of A, Doctor Rice?

Discrimination in Dubai

I expect this comment will stir up some unrest...

The question of discrimination in Dubai based on ethnicity comes up all the time, which came to mind as I walked around Satwa the other day.

The unpalatable fact that many refuse to accept is that it's largely imported by expatriates who bring their prejudices with them.

What I find ironic is that the group which in my experience complains longest and loudest is itself one of the most guilty of practicing discrimination.

For example, I came across many signs in Satwa demonstrating discrimination based on not only nationality but also by which area of a country people come from, and by religion.







You'll find the same thing in the Domestic Employment ads in Gulf News, where the majority exclude most job-seekers by specifying nationality and/or area and/or religion. For example:

"Housemaid, South Indian, preferably Keralite, required for a family residing in Sharjah.

Full-time Housemaid, Indian, urgently required for an Indian family in Karama.

Housemaid, Indian / Filipino, required for an Indian family residing Deira.

Think I'm exagerating when I say 'the majority' of ads? Check them out for yourself here.

Yes folks, discrimination is alive and well in Dubai.

A parody of justice

Remember the screaming headlines?

Soldier sentenced to 110 years in rape and murder of Iraqi girl

In fact it raises huge questions about American justice.

Read the CNN report and you find more detail:

"The sentence was part of a plea agreement attorneys for Pfc. Jesse Spielman had made with prosecutors.

It set the number of years he could serve in prison, regardless of the jury's recommendation.

The jury had recommended life with parole, a sentence under which he would have to wait longer for the possibility of parole.

He will be eligible for parole after 10 years."

Forget justice. Ignore the jury. Laugh at the sentence, it's meaningless PR spin. The way American justice works is to do shady deals in smokey back rooms.

What a disgrace.


Don't believe me? Go to the CNN story. I should warn you that it's a sickening report. Be reminded of what these animals are guilty of and there's only one sentence an honest system would hand down.

Oh, the irony.

In view of the American administration thrashing around the world accusing all and sundry countries of money laundering, thus aiding what BushW insists on calling 'tearists', I thought this was an interesting story:

Putting Virginia Tech. into context.

Thirty-two victims and their killer die in one day at Virginia Tech., a horrifying tragedy.

America and much of the world is swamped with days of news coverage, pundits are wheeled out on TV and radio to disect the whole thing.

But. I always have a but.

Put it into context.

That many Americans are shot to death every ten hours. Of every day. Year in and year out.

An average of eight-five Americans die by gunshot every day.

The same number as were killed on 9/11 are killed every five weeks.

Thirty thousand are killed every year.

Go back over the last four paragraphs , read them slowly and think about them.

This is not just armed criminal street gangs, as is often suggested. It's estimated that there are about 250 million guns, from handguns to fully automatic army weapons, throughout American society. That's almost one for every man, woman and child in the country.

Americans For Gun Safety website gives figures for 1998, the latest quoted. In Virginia that year there were 295 homicides, 531 suicides, 33 fatal gun accidents and 13 'other gun deaths', a total of 872. At 12.29 per 100,000 population that's almost as bad as Dubai's road deaths that we complain so much about. That year, 30,708 died by gunshot nationally, a rate of 11.32 per 100,000.

The battle lines are drawn of course - gun control and no gun control spokespeople are out in force.

I was particularly taken with this quote from the Gun Owners of America, who call the school "a victim disarmament zone":

"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen. It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools."

Pretty well sums up the thinking in what appears to be the majority of America, or at least by the only people who matter, the ones with power and influence.

And I can't see that the situation will get anything but worse. It's very difficult to change something that's been a part of a culture from its very beginning. It's not impossible, it's happened in other cultures through the millenia, but the people have to want the change.

America is a violent country, created by violence & the gun and it's all ingrained in the phsyche. So in the next decade over 300,000 Americans are going to die at the barrel of a gun.

Astonishingly, they're going to accept it.

Some reading:
Gun deaths per year.

Gun Deaths By State.

Gun Owners of America.

Double standards

The (London) Daily Telegraph reports that YouTube is showing videos of American soldiers being shot and blown up, in a piece headlined Website attacked over propaganda videos of soldiers' deaths in Iraq. In Gulf News the headline is "Fury as website 'gloats' over US Iraq deaths."

As you would expect, "Outraged relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq are now calling for the videos to be removed, or the website shut down."

The father of one of the victims said it was "deplorable" that YouTube was allowing such videos to be posted by its members.

"It's a propaganda tool, a recruiting tool and putting it on the internet like this is rubbing it in our faces," he said."It just infuriates me. Watching it was horrible. My son was hanging in there but he died eight hours after the explosion. He was only a kid."

I agree one hundred percent. Without question. Such images should not be shown.

Regardless of the nationality of the victims.

I well recall seeing on mainstream public television, film of Iraqis being killed. One that sticks in my mind is a man in a pick-up truck, jumping out and trying to hide from a helicopter gunship. We even had the voice-over of the aimer as the chopper hunted him down, then we saw the rocket fire hitting the road in front of him, he looked up startled, then was cut to pieces.

I read no outrage about that. I heard no-one demand that the tv station should be shut down. We didn't hear what his father thought about his son's death being broadcast on television around the world.

Double standards. Them and us. It's permissable for one side but not for the other. No family should have to see film of their loved ones being killed. No family. American or Iraqi. Or anyone else.

By the way, the report includes the line: The videos, made as propaganda by Islamist extremists... Using the same logic, wasn't the film I'm referring to 'made as propaganda by the US military'?

Irresponsible statistics & reporting.

There's a posting by trailing spouse on Gulf News' report that statistics show Indians & Pakistanis are the worst drivers.

It reminded me that I was going to write on the subject too, because it is totally irresponsible reporting. If these are truly the statistics published by the RTA, then they are at fault for publishing partial and misleading statistics. And Gulf News is at fault for not delving deeper and giving us the true picture.

If Gulf News have mis- or partially-reported the statistics, that is appalling 'journalism'.

The report shows unacceptable statistical anomalies, partial information at best, is guilty of not comparing like with like.

For example, it tells us that Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year. It doesn't tell us what percentage of drivers are Indian or Pakistani, so the statistic is meaningless. If, for argument's sake, Indians cause 30% of accidents but make up 50% of all drivers, the stat. gives a different picture.

Another example:
Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year, according to statistics released by the Roads and Transport Authority. It goes on: Indians committed 228 accidents causing 30 deaths and 344 injuries, which is 19.2 per cent of total accident victims.

You see, "caused most accidents" is compared with "is 19.2% of total accident victims."

Is it "accidents" or "accident victims" we're looking at? They are very different things.

Why accidents need to be presented by nationality is questionable. But if stats. are going to be presented in that way, then let's have the full picture so that they actually mean something.

Now of course it may be true that one particular nationality is over-represented in causing accidents. If it is true, and if South Asians are guilty of it, there's a sobering fact that trailing spouse reminds us of - they have to take lessons and pass the driving test in the UAE because their home licences are not accepted for transfer.

And one other point - sub-Continentals "cause" accidents while GCC nationals are "involved in" accidents. I quote: "Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents...GCC nationals were involved in 163 accidents"

Christian fascists?

Remembering this, President Bush said Thursday that an uncovered British terror plot to blow up planes flying to the United States was further proof "that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.", I wonder whether terrorists carrying out murderous attacks on behalf of their warped Christian beliefs, such as bombing abortion clinics and murdering the doctors, will be classified as 'Christian fascists'?

Or what about these Catholics:

Bomb discovery fuels fears of dissident republican revival

Owen Bowcott, Ireland correspondentThursday August 17, 20

The discovery of a partially detonated 70lb bomb in a house being built for the Ulster Unionist peer Lord Ballyedmond was blamed yesterday on dissident republican groups intent on launching a fresh campaign of terror.

The incident followed the Real IRA's claim of responsibility last week for fires in retail stores in Newry, County Down, and explosions on the nearby Belfast-Dublin railway line. More than £10m damage was caused.

In this week's attack on Lord Ballyedmond's house near Hackballscross, Co Louth, the detonator on the bomb, packed in a natural gas cylinder, exploded but failed to set off the main charge. Irish army bomb disposal experts eventually made it safe.

The Guardian

Just wondering whether being Christian makes a difference...

"Look what you made me do"

It's always someone else's fault isn't it.



'How can we stand by and allow this to go on?'
Robert Fisk
Published: 31 July 2006

They wrote the names of the dead children on their plastic shrouds. " Mehdi Hashem, aged seven ­ Qana," was written in felt pen on the bag in which the little boy's body lay. "Hussein al-Mohamed, aged 12 ­ Qana", "Abbas al-Shalhoub, aged one ­ Qana.'' And when the Lebanese soldier went to pick up Abbas's little body, it bounced on his shoulder as the boy might have done on his father's shoulder on Saturday. In all, there were 56 corpses brought to the Tyre government hospital and other surgeries, and 34 of them were children. When they ran out of plastic bags, they wrapped the small corpses in carpets. Their hair was matted with dust, most had blood running from their noses.

You must have a heart of stone not to feel the outrage that those of us watching this experienced yesterday. This slaughter was an obscenity, an atrocity ­ yes, if the Israeli air force truly bombs with the " pinpoint accuracy'' it claims, this was also a war crime. Israel claimed that missiles had been fired by Hizbollah gunmen from the south Lebanese town of Qana ­ as if that justified this massacre. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked about "Muslim terror" threatening " western civilisation" ­ as if the Hizbollah had killed all these poor people.*


It used to be the domain of small boys - throw a stone at your brother, he ducks, the stone goes through a window...

"Now look what you've made me do."

"His fault mum, he ducked."

That culture has crept into adult public life, so now we have our politicians routinely refusing to take responsibility for their actions.

This is just another example.

*Read the full dispatch from Robert Fisk in The Independent here


Please also read Babykaos' beautifully written item 'Baby's Black Balloon'.

Far too late Dr Rice.

It's time to talk ceasefire, says US
THE 19-day-old war in the Middle East has reached a turning point, with Israel's deadliest attack yet killing 54 people in southern Lebanon and the United States declaring it is time for a ceasefire.

Images of dead children - 37 children, police said - being dragged from the building in Qana, southern Lebanon provoked international condemnation and shattered the ceasefire talks.

While an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said Israel regretted the
death of innocent civilians, the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, vowed the offensive in Lebanon would continue.

In Jerusalem, Dr Rice said she was saddened by the attack: "I think it is time to get to a ceasefire. We actually have to try and put one in place. My work towards a ceasefire is really here today."

Sydney Morning Herald. Photo: AP/Nasser Nasser


Hundreds of innocent people killed, very many of them children, on both sides of the border, lives torn apart, thousands have lost their homes, their livelihoods...and the best we can get from the one country that could have stopped it, but refused to do so, is "I think it is time to get to a ceasefire."

No comment...

For reasons too boring to go into I was doing a quick bit of research on Magna Carta. Salisbury Cathedral has a copy and on their website I came across this paragraph. I was struck by the last two sentences, having just been reading about 'rendition', Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib et al:

"Magna Carta is Latin for “The Great Charter” the famous agreement made between King John and his barons at Runneymede in 1215. It is beautifully written in Latin on vellum (animal skin) and contains some 3,500 words, many of which have been abbreviated. It established, amongst other principles in law, that no free man may be imprisoned or prosecuted without fair trail before his equals. The basic principles of the Magna Carta have been incorporated into the Constitution of the United States of America."

Some diplomacy!

Colleen Graffy, the deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told BBC's Newshour yesterday. "Taking their own lives was not necessary, but it certainly is a good PR move."

diplomacy n skill in management of international relations.

Didn't she do well!

Nearly five years in a prison camp with no charges laid, no hope of ever being released, and the reason they kill themselves is to create a PR stunt, according to not only Ms Graffy but also other spokesmen.

And it's now announced that after nearly five years in the prison camp 141 of the prisoners will be released without charge. Including one of the prisoners who killed himself. No-one bothered to tell him that he was to be released.

So even under this new twisted American version of democratic law, they couldn't find them guilty of anything.

The time is long overdue to get back to observing international, and national, law.

Here's what the New York Times has to say about it today:

The Deaths at Gitmo

The news that three inmates at Guantánamo Bay hanged themselves should not have surprised anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the twisted history of the camp that President Bush built for selected prisoners from Afghanistan and antiterrorist operations. It was the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release.

It is a place where secret tribunals sat in judgment of men whose identities they barely knew and who were not permitted to see the evidence against them. Inmates were abused, humiliated, tormented and sometimes tortured. Some surely are very dangerous men, committed to a life of terrorism and deserving of harsh justice. But only 10 of the roughly 465 men at the camp have been charged with crimes. The others, according to senior officers who served there, were foot soldiers of the Taliban or men who just happened to live in a country invaded by the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

Inmates at Guantánamo Bay have tried seeking help from the American courts, and one case has reached the Supreme Court. But most of these appeals were thwarted by claims of national security. Any new appeals will fall under a shocking new law that deprives the inmates of the centuries-old right to challenge their imprisonment. Government lawyers have even tried to use that law retroactively, to dismiss all pending appeals.

Guantánamo Bay and other American detention centers have sparked outrage around the world — deeply harming America's image as the defender of humanity against just these sorts of abuses. Last month a United Nations panel called for the prisons to be shut down. But the administration's response to all of this has been defiance.

When dozens of inmates went on hunger strikes last year, the authorities strapped them into metal "restraint chairs" and ordered doctors to force-feed them. Military officials said they did this only to inmates on the brink of death, but The Times has reported that the restraint chair was used on all hunger strikers, regardless of their condition.

Medical groups were overwhelmingly appalled by this practice, but the Pentagon issued new rules this month reaffirming that military doctors can be ordered to force-feed prisoners. The only role for psychiatrists at Gitmo seems to be to help prepare prisoners for interrogation.

So it was not surprising in the least when inmates attempted suicide. Twenty-three tried to kill themselves over eight days in August 2003, but the military covered it up for 18 months. Now, three inmates have succeeded. Camp officials say one was a mid- or high-level Qaeda operative. One was captured in Afghanistan (doing what, we're not sure), and the other was from something the camp commander, Rear Adm. Harry Harris Jr., called a splinter group.

Admiral Harris's response was as appalling as the suicides. "I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us," he said. The inmates, he said, "have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own."

These comments reveal a profound disassociation from humanity. They say more about why Guantánamo Bay should be closed than any United Nations report ever could.

Selective free speech.

Irving to admit Holocaust denial

Ian TraynorThursday February 16, 2006
The Guardian

David Irving, the Nazi apologist and historian jailed in Austria for the past three months, said he would plead guilty in court next week to charges of denying the Holocaust.
He was arrested in southern Austria last November on charges dating from speeches he delivered in the country in 1989. Austria has the harshest laws anywhere criminalising Holocaust denial although it is also regarded as being reluctant to prosecute Nazi war criminals.
According to the charge sheet which has been obtained by the Guardian, Irving said in two speeches in Austria 1989 there were no "extermination camps" in the Third Reich, the gas chambers were a "fairytale" and Hitler had protected the Jews of Europe.
Irving faces up to 10 years in prison for such statements in Austria.

The sub-text to this, of course, is the trumpeting about free speech in the West over the Prophet Mohammed cartoons, when true free speech is a myth. It's illegal to say that the holocaust didn't happen. Stupid, yes, racist, yes, denying the evidence, yes...but why illegal?
It's a very selective 'free speech' system isn't it.

Rent increases

OK, OK, I know the rent increases are way over the top, but I have a question for all of the renters whinging and complaining about blood-sucking, greedy, unreasonable landlords. If you owned the property, wouldn't you also be charging the highest rent the market could stand?